MALABANAN V.

RAMENTO
Posted by abegail guardian on October 28, 2013 · Leave a Comment
Facts: Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of Respondent University. They sought and were
granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8am to 12am. Pursuant to such permit, along with
other students, they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (VMAS) Basketball
Court. The place indicated in such permit, not in the basketball court as therein stated, but at the second floor lobby.
At such gathering, they manifested in vehement and vigorous language their opposition to the proposed merger of the
Institute of Animal Science. They continued their language severely critical of the university authorities and using
megaphones in the process. There was, as a result, disturbance of classes being held. Also, non academic employees
within hearing distance, stopped their work because of noise created. They were asked to explain why they should not
be held liable for holding an assembly.

Issue: Whether or not the suspension of students for one academic year was violative of the constitutional rights of
freedom of assembly and free speech?

Decision: Yes, necessarily their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving public interest is not
subjected to previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless there be a showing of clear and present danger to a
substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost, however,
by an advocacy or disorder. If assembly is to be held in school premises, permit must be sought from its school
authorities who are devoid to deny such request. In granting such permit, there may be conditions as to the time and
place of an assembly to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage of work of non-academic personnel. However, in
violation of terms, penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense.

Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937

Facts:

Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of prohibition against
respondent Ruiz, the Director of Post, enjoining the latter from issuing and selling postage
stamps commemorative of the 33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic.
The petitioner invokes that such issuance and selling, as authorized by Act 4052 by the Phil.
Legislature, contemplates religious purpose – for the benefit of a particular sect or church.
Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is constitutional?

Held/Reason:

The Court said YES, the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps by the respondent does
not contemplate any favor upon a particular sect or church, but the purpose was only ‘to
advertise the Philippines and attract more tourist’ and the government just took advantage of
an event considered of international importance, thus, not violating the Constitution on its
provision on the separation of the Church and State. Moreover, the Court stressed that
‘Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs’. Emphasizing that, ‘when the Filipino
people ‘implored the aid of Divine Providence’, they thereby manifested reliance upon Him
who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human
society is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately
accorded to religious sects and denominations.’

acts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale

Facts and case summary for Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
School-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

Facts
A New York State law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance
and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God.
The law allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found it objectionable.
A parent sued on behalf of his child, arguing that the law violated the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue
Whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Ruling
Yes (6-1)

Reasoning
The majority, via Justice Black, held that school-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. The majority stated that the provision allowing students to
absent themselves from this activity did not make the law constitutional because the purpose
of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion. The majority
noted that religion is very important to a vast majority of the American people. Since Americans
adhere to a wide variety of beliefs, it is not appropriate for the government to endorse any
particular belief system. The majority noted that wars, persecutions, and other destructive
measures often arose in the past when the government involved itself in religious affairs.

Concurrence
Justice Douglas
In his concurrence, Justice Douglas took an even broader view of the Establishment Clause,
arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious
schools, violates the Establishment Clause.

Dissent
Justice Stewart
Justice Stewart argued in his dissent that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prohibit
the establishment of a state-sponsored church, such as the Church of England, and not prohibit
all types of government involvement with religion. In particular, he found that the
nondenominational nature of the prayer and the "absentee" provision removed constitutional
challenges.